missed point..

I am linux user but not a silly fan, i only mention it when asked and the main difference people notice at work is the start up time (which is also nice and quick in OSX). There are many problems i face with linux that Windows users do not have... i have had to hack sound and video on EVERY version of linux i have ever used to get it working (7 years now and the problem only gets worse with every new re-invention of solving everything).

There are 10, 000 apps to do the same thing and nothing to do task X (insert windows app there).

Ok, so i can run Photoshop in wine, i can do all my dev work but that is not what business need and developer need are so so different.

What linux needs is EXCEL and POWERPOINT... business runs on Excel and Powerpoint.

Whether they are good or not is not relevant but until you can replace Excel with a seamless drop in replacement, (and Open Office is not there yet) then business will ignore you... its very simple.

Perhaps the FSF should push for office compatibility as that is the key to it.

And while they are at they should push harder at a decent mail server that would replace Exchange... business currently only sees Outlook and Lotus Notes in the world of email.

Don't flame me, i am only telling it how it is..

@ Crazy Operations Guy

Although you used lashings of creative license, which obviously many others here don't get (maybe they're American), but hear-hear!

Aside from their extreme stance on things, I'm usually on the side of the FSF, in tune with their general principles, but I think they've picked a ridiculous battle here, and I can't believe someone higher up actually signed off on it.

Err, sorry, but...

linux for internet faced servers or internal web and file servers - windows for the rest

FSF and RMS are currently only a nasty bug that damages the image of linux. they act like some rpg geeks that burn down a orc camp (the ugly commercial vendors, y'know). but while they are chasing this erronous path, they do not get better with their own products.

why does open source exist? because someone has spare time or he thinks it could be legally better to do it open because of IP and/or copyright claims or by design for others to learn.

why does open source not succeeed well? read the forums! the people expect something to work - but it does not - they use the cheapest way and ask a forum - MAYBE they have googled before - but in the forum - the very first replies usually are - "i swear this has been answered before - go search" or another famous "why you should want to to this?" - why in gods name has a user to explain why he wants it this way and not the other way? why is the community at large and the developers in particular not willing to listen to "its customers" ? - because they don't see them as "customers"

open source is "take it or leave it" and then FSF and RMS wonders why people rather choose Windows or more recently again Mac OS over Linux. Because the other two just WORKS and because there are SO MANY friends and other people on this planet WHO understand the quirks of Windows very well and are easily fixed. THEY even shove money up the bottom to Symantec for the most intrusive av/ids solution and are quite HAPPY with it, beause they feel CONFIDENT and SECURED.

and finally - open source failed miserably - they ignored their enemy. while windows was regarded as "profit land" it attracted shareware developers - shareware a work seldom heard in the linux/foss comunity. but this model and further commercial software (binaries) were not even possible with linux a long time - the ABI and API was so volatile you simply could not afford to develop for the platform.

the conclusion:

as long as linux folks do regard binary blobs as evil - to be punished - linux and opensource are likely to fail - nearly every commercial vendor (ibm, oracle, microsoft, novell, etc.) who contributed something "open" is using linux as a propaganda machine, but meanwhile is poisoning the platform with their idea where it should be heading - and the more contributions are made, and the more who get accepted - the less the platform will mature. it will remain a testbed for "current" and "upcoming" technology and just attract more bloat. look at the linux kernel and you know what I am talking about.

Compliance

And their suggestions are PCI compliant???

So bad

So bad, it's probably a false flag operation by Ballmer and Gatinski (AKA Gates) themselves!

Where's my clue-by-four?

Clue: Users != Programmers, in the vast majority (>95%) of cases.

Expecting users to simply "program their way around" anything is like expecting my mother to learn C, make and bash. It's not going to happen. Any time this century, in fact - so you may as well give up, unless you are prepared to go back to the drawing board (yes, start from scratch) and figure out why people will pay for Windows, yet wouldn't be paid to use Linux.

Being honest, I *am* a programmer (and I know a hell of a lot more programming languages than just C), and even *I* can't be arsed to willingly trust my computer to Linux. Something always goes wrong, and I expect to be able to snap my fingers and get some minion to fix it. Why? My day job consists of responding to OTHER people snap THEIR fingers to fix their computers, and at the end of the day, I simply want my PC to work - and Windows XP suits my needs just fine (and those of my fiancee - who, by the way, is also a programmer - and she has even less patience for errant computers than I do.)

It is my guess that 499 out of those 499 CEOs won't give a damn about open standards, as long as they can have their Microsoft PowerPoint slides and Playboy screensavers. And that, Linux geeks, is something you can never compare to.

@deegee

I use Linux (Ubuntu Intrepid) exclusively on my laptop to get everything done. The only problems I've encountered are:

No Photoshop. VMWare mends the odd occasion I need it

No Dreamweaver: Sometimes a client demands I use DreamWrecker, VMWare again

Open Office not so keen on docx files: Request a PDF version, Office in VMware would be a waste of disk space.

None of these are show-stoppers by any means. Everything else works fine, e.g. FF3, Thunderbird, Skype, Aptana, Spotify...

People go on about Open Office not cutting the mustard and, while not a heavy spreadsheet user, docx is the only problem I have with it which I believe is exactly WHY MS created that format in the first place, isn't it?

Logic Fail

Does anyone else see the logic fail in the FSF's argument? It goes like this:

"If you use proprietary software, when it goes end of life you have to employ people to fix it yourself. However, if you use OSS, you can employ people to fix it rather than waiting for the vendor."

Riiiiiiiight. I think I'll stick with the tried & tested method of buying a product supported by the people that wrote it, and if I need to carry on using it past the end of its life then at least when I employ people to manage it, I'll know that they're supporting something that's already had 7 years of vendor fixes and knowledgebase articles applied to it.

The ideals being punted by the FSF do not apply to the corporate world of delegated/devolved responsibility and chains of command.

what the FSF doesnt get

And quite a few Linux Open Source zealots / evangelists as well is that LARGE (fortune 500) companies do not want the hassle.

MOST of the employees of these companies use windows because it is familiar, a lot of them don’t have the CAPACITY to learn a new O/S and application set from the ground up.

OK so Linux and all the applications on there are free. Like it or not, to transition from ANY OS to any other OS will require training, training takes time, time is money. IT ISN'T worth it.

Until someone comes up with a Linux distro that looks & behaves EXACTLY like Windows with application that look and behave exactly like windows applications that support all those legacy intranet applications that despite your disbelief STILL require Internet Explorer 6 to run then there will be no wholesale migration to Linux.

Most LARGE corporations trust the day to day running to *NIX based servers or even mainframes. Desktop / laptop O/S is Windows by default because MOST of the THOUSANDS of employees know how it works and have NO interest in learning a new system.

Oh, just as a matter of interest does anyone know how many of those letters got read by the intended recipients versus the amount that got binned by the intended recipients PA?

Not ready yet.

No offence but linux still isn't ready for primetime. Having used many GUIs over the years and have to say that linux (or at least Ubuntu 9.0.4) just isn't ready.

Example 1: Trying to set the IP of the machine to be static. Oh wait I can't because as soon as I try it the 'Apply' button greys out. Tips from friends that use it, 'yeah that networking applet is crap, kill it and manually edit a frickin text file'.

Example 2: Automounting USB drives. Well this does work...until it decides there are updates to install at which point it stops working and won't work until I reboot.

It's ok the folks here saying that's not a problem but try telling it to people who have trouble just pointing and clicking on stuff. Editing config files just isn't an option.

My file/web server etc still runs linux as it's great for that but I just don't see it being good for the vast majority of end users.

Errrrm...

Because Linux is, you know, 101% secure and has always been.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/14/critical_linux_bug/

plus, from a support perspective, I simply can't imagine the chaos if we attempted to move our big corporate clients to a linux distro. They struggle with Windows XP and they've been using that for donkeys years. At least Win 7 will maintain a modicum of consistancy in interface.

Plus, quite frankly, a lot of open source software is bollocks. There is a reason that I still recommend MS's Office, its vastly superior.

Plus no third party vendors supply anything other than Windows applications.

Them : "We need to install this CCTV control application as part of our critical operations centre rollout, as mandated by the CEOs"

Us : "Is it a windows only application? Well then we can't as we made the brave decision to move you all to Linux! (Aren't we clever!)"

Them : "No you aren't clever, we're terminating your contract. You fucking retards"

I do appreciate the open source/non-monopoloy movement, and have no theoretical objections to using it at our clients, but its simply not up to scratch. This is the same argument we've been hearing for years, and will continue to hear for years more. Until their software is actually as good as the 'pay for' alternatives its never going to happen.

Eh Oh - Real World Alert (tm)

HAH Linux on corporate desktops. Please....yeah right like that'll be the answer. I can't see any of these working "straight out of the box" in a Linux desktop world. AD integration, fluid sharepoint access, financial app plugins in Excel, Exchange integrated contact managers, VoIP, Call centre management sw..... the list goes on and that's just our particular apps. Add in user unfamiliarity and really who is going to seriously suggest a desktop change on the next upgrade?

Option 1.

Buy new HW when required - it'll come with a ver of Windows 7.

Option 2.

Progressively phase in Linux on each older desktop and slowly over time bring the company to it's knees as each PC becomes unusable in our environment without a serious amount of additional cost? Erm... nope I won't be doing that and that's only one reason that most medium and large corporate companies will be sticking with MS for the desktop.

I'm not a MS fanboi. Just someone who uses both OSs and realises that one is better for a corporate world and the other for a home PC.

Funny how people argue for lockin

I find it incredible that people actually argue FOR lock-in, though it makes everything far more expensive.

I've worked for a lot of companies even microsoft centric companies, and I've only once shifted to a windows workstation, and that was only at one company who was near religious about you HAVING TO USE WINDOWS.

Everywhere else, I found the applications they insisted on you using, like lotus notes, CCMail, or variations up on that, which I installed and ran under wine.

Funny thing a lot of these programs were more stable under wine, than under the various versions of windows they were designed to work on, as well as running in wine, I can easily kill the application, without it crashing the operating system, and spending time rebooting.

But hey, it's not MS, which is 99% of the arguments that the pro-lockin, and pro MS people argue for.

Yes Linux has a problem in that it tries to cater for all people, and unfortunately it has segmented, because too many linux developers believe in the Microsoft Approach, total and absolute integration of everything - but they do not agree on the how - which is not what was intended.

UNIX was designed to have a core, which was independant of everything, the bare minimum to boot, start up, and to allow repairs of the system, this used to be a few MB, however, due to the integration, and entaglements of everything, linux is now becoming what windows is, a huge mess - that I must admit, however, MS is still lightyears ahead on the mess part.

The funny thing is the amont of people talking about linux fanboids, you'd be amazed how many windows evangelists (aka fanboids) there are, to whom, if it's not Microsoft and Windows, then it's wrong - you will find a few in this thread too.

The realities is that you do not need MSO for more than 95% of tasks, The other reality is that you do not need Windows for most things, unless you directly want to use some propritory technology - which is also one of the greatest security risks there is - activeX. Java will do the same as active X, but it's not the Microsoft Windows Way (tm). Another reality which pro-vendorlock-in people ingore, is the fact that a real lot of windows software will run seamlessly under wine, and will even install directly from the DVD/CD, except for the cases again where the program is written in the proprietory technology, called .NET, supposed to be cross platform, but is only supported under windows - strangely enough.

Even a lot of games run near seamlessly under linux, som require a bit of finddling, for instance, WoW, Eve, Lotro amongst other can run on linux - I've personally run Eve, and Lotro.

With respect to lock down, if you really believe you can lock a windows system down more than a linux system, from a users point of view, I think you do not understand the technologies very well. Linux functions where uses have limited access to the system, something that is NOT normal for windows, though it can be configured that way, and most corporations do, and yet, the very same lockdown is possible in linux. However, on the external and services side, pls tell me which of the 100's of windows services, that open ports on my machine that I can shut down, without the operating system freezing, and requiring a re-install.. On a Linux system, it can be locked completely down, so that there are no extraneous services running, and therefore no externally exploitable weaknesses. I know it is possible to remove every program that might communicate via the network on a linux machine, very easily, and it is also trivial to find and remove programs that breach that requirement.

@Adam Williamson 1

"you don't have to be a programmer for open source / free software to prove directly valuable to you."

Yes, but when it inevitably screws up (which it does a LOT, in my experience), you will need to be a programmer to dig yourself out of the hole you have just put yourself into - and you'd better pray you can do it before someone notices you're in over your head, fires you, and picks someone who makes a sane decision to save themselves a lot of pain, hassle and risk - and just chooses Windows.

The fact of the matter is, Linux applications are for programmers, not users. Sure, you can fetch stuff easily with yum - but it is painfully evident that the software does not interact very well. The online support, which a lot of Linux geeks like to espouse (and recommend to everone else on frequent occasion) are hopeless if you are not willing to RTFM, STFW or trawl through gads and gads of meaningless babble in order to solve your problem. The geeks insist on it, and won't give answers until you do, but the average user hasn't got the patience or time to play detective - and the author of the software couldn't give a toss about their deadlines, so they ultimately aren't going to get any joy from forums, e-mail or Google. They will simply do the clever thing, pick up the phone, and call Microsoft for paid support. And then get on with their job.

There is an amusing tome on the Internet, referenced by many geeks, and it is called "How to Ask Questions The Smart Way", here: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html - however, it starts to get ridiculous very fast. Just the length alone is enough to put off the casual user - they aren't going to stick around for 15-20 minutes just to read a document that is completely unrelated to their problem. The geeks like to get on their high horse and say that anyone who doesn't follow their etiquette won't get help, etc - and that's fine: The average user doesn't want to be treated like that - and if it comes down to having to face an invasion of privacy from Microsoft or being treated like a moron online simply because they do not know (or do not have the patience to search exhaustively) about their problem, most of them - I guarantee you, will pick the Microsoft option without a second thought.

> "the Devs in the department work with the philosophy that "I just worked several hundred

> hours designing, coding and testing this application, why the hell should I just give it away?"

"Sigh."

You obviously don't get it. Do commercial outfits give their products or time away for free? Few managers, I will wager, will happily say "Okay, go and work on this product, and then release it to the world, so our competitors have an easier time of it." Do you understand ANYTHING about stretegy, or do you think we all live in a fuzzy little utopia where everyone shares and plays nice?

> "The primary reason I avoid Linux-based OSes is the almost cult-like following."

"Right, because when you install the operating system, the cult-like following comes attached. Er, wait...no it doesn't. If you want to care about the cult-like following, you can, whether you run Linux or not. Ditto if you _don't_ want to care. Companies which use Linux to any significant extent are not getting their support from rabidlinuxfanbois.com, they get it from Red Hat, or Novell. (disclaimer: I work for Red Hat.)"

Once again, you completely miss the point. One does not subscribe to Red Hat support off the bat, you know. Someone usually ends up trialling the product, and having to endure the "free" support before signing up with Red Hat. Usually the experience is traumatic enough that the poor admin usually ends up reaching for a double scotch and Microsoft's sales number.

So, actually, the cult-like following DOES make a big difference. You just haven't made the connection yet.

> "People like the FSF"

> It's not like the FSF is particularly attached to Linux. They're still trying to write their own

> kernel, remember. And Linus hardly agrees with the FSF's ideological views.

It's not the Linux / FSF kernel I'm worried about - it's their compiler. GCC sucks, big-time - and I would not put any trust in it at all. I would put even less trust in a kernel compiled with it. I do not think much of Microsoft's compiler, but even they manage to do a better job - although, bizarrely, I actually have a choice on the MS platform: I can choose to use the (much better) Intel compiler if I wish. Most GNU software is so broken that it won't compile with anything except GCC without heavy, time-consuming modifications. And, as for trying to use it on something like BSD? Oh boy, you'd better have plenty of time to spare - because you're going to need it!

Don't get me wrong: I do not love Microsoft or what they stand for. But from a business perspective, Microsoft is still, even now, the superior choice. End of story.

As usual

The two main zealotry parties wage war on each other while the plodders keep plodding along, completely unconcerned about the clowns to the left of them or jokers to the right. That the plodders rarely gain any ground either really makes you wonder if everyone's missing the point somewhat.

Some of the FSF's statements are laughable, as are some of the MS fanbois' replies. As every reasonable, open-minded person knows, neither are getting any closer to the truth, preferring to throw stones rather than replace their own shattered panes of glass with polycarbonate.

OK, all these metaphors are starting to get a little aMfM-ish (but that last one works on so many levels), so I'll assume my point has been made.

It must be nice to have a trust fund to live off of

It must be nice to have a trust fund to live off of. To bad my parents aren't so wealthy.

The rest of us must earn a living.

We do this by "working", producing a "useful product", and "selling it".

Proof positive

The proof of how badly LInux has a market doesn't undertstand the general corporate IT market is in the comments here.

A good example being frm John's long winded post (in itself proof of the mentality of the FSF).

"Things actually work all the time and I can configure my desktop the way *I* want to configure my desktop, not the way MS thinks I should have my desktop configured."

Your lucky, I've contracted in a number of large coporations and in my experience you and MS don't get to choose how your desktop is configured the Corporation that paid the license do!

Changing th average corporate user to a linux desktop will cost far too much in training, support and staff time. The FSF have also approached this at the wrong time, I think the word 'free' has made them forget global economy is in a recession transferring to a different desktop (x1000 or more) is not a cost that can be endorsed, especially when most companies are hop, skip and a jump away from making people redunant.

All this just reinforces the point that Linux advocates don't have a clue about the bigger picture (or any understanding of Marketing for that matter).

Time to buy...

Having looked at that awful website, its ridiculous arguments and the fanboi response on here, I'm seriously considering dropping the cash to upgrade my XP boxes to Win7.

Vista was a no-hoper, but if that's really the best F/LOSS can do then it's clear that there's only going to be one winner in the near future, and it's the Boys from Redmond.

Just a waste of time

Until someone puts together a viable alternative for moving away from Windows then this kind of antic aint gonna work.

RedHat have sussed it and i think Mark Shuttleworth's approach is more positive.

I hope the paper it was written on is long and thoroughly absorbent as that's all it will be used for!

Windows - the middle ground

It's just occurred to me (but probably not the first person) that Microsoft provide the middle ground on OSes, assuming you count OSX, Windows and Linux as the 3 main choices.

OSX - a single solution, very little wiggle room for customising your 80,000+ user base, but "it just works"

Windows - a lot more effort, a lot more degrees of freedom and "it kinda works"

Linux - soooo much effort, soooo much freedom, but for the big companies who don't want to spend so much time/effort, "it doesn't work".

Have the FSF considered that Fortune 500 companies WANT a locked in upgrade cycle, as it allows them to just hand over a wad of money and know that gradually they carry on along the technology curve while allowing themselves to integrate their own solutions on the desktop.

It's a status quo that nobody wants to interfere with. Call it a monopoly if you like, but even IT departments outsource their desktop support contracts, they don't want to pay and manage linux desktop engineers directly. They recognise the synergies elsewhere.

Erm..

Ok fine great, give me Linux, move the whole network over to new boxes, move all my applications over to open source free systems, move the desktops over to free system, i am as happy as can be...

wait!!! oh no these developers who wrote my applications arent making any money so they move onto a new product, the company folds, or even worse realise they should be making money and start to charge for there products. Now where am i, oh yes in the exact same boat i was in when i was with Microsoft.

This letter is a joke, do you really think compaines that size havent already looked at the alternatives, the pro's and the cons, and that a simple letter will make them change the minds of the board / tech;s and users ?

Bah, and even worse FSF are trying to get people to donate for letter to be sent out, $25 for 50 letters ? im not convinced, and ill bet alot of others arent either..

Why Free?

I am not understanding this free software cults. Why must it only be good thing for software to be free?

What else we see in life that takes many men-months or years to make and then people say it must be free? What is wrong for programmer man to expect some monies for his fine skills and all his working time put in?

Perhaps it all just comes in from student with long and greasy hair and heavy metal t-shirt and wifi called "Use-of-W3apons", who works on the Linux free instead of studying for my tax pounds. But when he goes away and must have a job he stops making the Linux free and is happy to take some money. And so it goes on that the Linux is only come from students which we find to be the bad reason for always the rewriting of the file system and things as each has own wheel to reinvent and no experience of the proper skills we seek from operating system man.

Having free access to the code IS important

Having free access to the code IS important for a very simple reason.

YOU may not have the ability to fix the C code on the underlying system - but some of the other millions of users will have - and they will fix it and then send the fix to the maintainers so everybody (including you) will benefit. And those with the neatest, cleanest fix will have their fix used. 'Given enough eyeballs - all bugs are shallow'

Without this you are stuck with merely waiting for the vendor to acknowledge the problem, care enough about it, assign it to be fixed, include it in the codebase (Vista doesn't have a single codebase so put it into your branch - wait for the branches to be merged into a single build, test out the fix - re-fix, re merge , find out someone else's branch has code which breaks your fix etc etc etc etc etc. That's why Vista cost 5 billion and still fails.

You see, with open source the problems which affect the most people naturally get sorted first. That's why Ubuntu is so highly polished and works so well - but Windows can't even copy files correctly.

@Lee

I think, if you re-read, you'll find the point is that no matter how much zealotry and smear-campaigning is going on, those of us who have to actually implement this stuff don't really care and we'll continue to build networks with whatever works. Also, that last metaphor hints that, instead of concentrating on getting their own shit in order, they're too busy sniping at the others' failings, a complete waste of time if you ask me, with the end result being that all-to-well-known mantra "all software sucks."

But yes, you have a point. It was a bit too aMfM, wasn't it? Coat obtained, taxi waiting.

It's bizarre.....

As a developer, I can't afford to write software for the FSF. Obviously I need to eat something. All I can do is hope that when I do write software people will see sense, and choose to pay for it, because they could legitimately get it for free from the FSF Open Source movement. I'm certain that the FSF or the Open Source movement isn't going to pay my food bills.

The FSF is literally trying to starve me out, and for what.

When I went to university the accepted engineering rationale, was that of two port networks. These are black boxes. You don't need to know what's inside because you're smart enough to figure it out by test and observation. Once you've got that far, the "black box" is the key abstraction tool, which allows ever higher levels of integration.

The way I see it, it's just amateurish to tinker inside someone else's box.

Now perhaps, the FSF have a point that Microsoft should be trying to open up their source, just because they could, and it might well benefit a good few people. There are also good reasons not to open up their source. Since they are a commercial company operating in the free world, I think they should be allowed to do as they choose. Heck if you want to change MS software that badly, join Microsoft...... they'll even pay you.

The FSF acts to damage progressive innovation. This occurs because there is little abstraction, because there are no black boxes, and no owners of black boxes.

Black boxes are like pot plants. They need an owner to come along and trim them once in a while. If many people share that task, and no-one is responsible, they become ragged. Once they're ragged no-one wants to work on them. Then they go wild.

I would suggest that the biggest creative force in the Open Source movement is that of sponsorship. In a world where everyone might be considered equal, there is no-one more equal than he or she, who buys their food with that sponsorship money.

FSF launches Windows 7 anti-upgrade letter campaign

I'll join in on the free software bandwagon as soon as I can walk into a store and get free food, free cloths. Free housing and health care would also be required. In the meantime I expect to get paid when I write code. In order for my company to be able to do that, they will probably need someone to pay for the systems they write.

@Chronos

"The two main zealotry parties wage war on each other while the plodders keep plodding along, completely unconcerned about the clowns to the left of them or jokers to the right. That the plodders rarely gain any ground either really makes you wonder if everyone's missing the point somewhat."

Thank goodness somebody is paying attention!

"Some of the FSF's statements are laughable, as are some of the MS fanbois' replies. As every reasonable, open-minded person knows, neither are getting any closer to the truth, preferring to throw stones rather than replace their own shattered panes of glass with polycarbonate."

It never changes. Let's face it, you can't tell somebody something they don't want to know. Windows zealots don't want to believe that a Linux distro is no longer in the dark ages when you needed to know every required setting down to the nth degree to even get a CLI up, and Linux zealots don't want to know that there are downsides to moving away from an OS that, whatever its flaws, has the market by the danglies. A week doesn't go by when this argument doesn't get dragged up again, usually by folk with less than a grasp on the actualities of the other's situation, including those zealots of versions and distros which tends to muddy the waters still further.

"OK, all these metaphors are starting to get a little aMfM-ish (but that last one works on so many levels), so I'll assume my point has been made."

May you live in interesting times!

Why would anyone take the risk?

In my mind only one AC has got it right so far. The work is RISK.

Put myself in the shoes of a CIO. Unless I am very lucky I’m not going to know just how IT savvy my users are, and to be honest the help desk tickets would suggest they’re a bunch of mostly IT muppets. From my experience in PC support there's also no whay of knowing what everyone in that size of org uses in the way of apps. We know what we have put out there but i bet there will be a bunch of other things - an example from my experience is a marketing department installing software for digital cameras they use to take publicity and product shots (only found out when they called up to ask for help :) )

Risk of moving away from Windows #1 – how are my users going to accept it and is my helldesk going to be swamped over the next few months as they try and work out where the start button it

I frankly wouldn’t care how close to windows it is – unless it looks exactly the same then there would be a risk to me as a hypothetical CIO. I appreciate that moving from XP (likely as the incumbent system) to Win7 would be a bit different, but if users complain about the differences I can blame Microsoft (and who doesn’t enjoy that?). Move to Linux et al and no one to blame but me

Risk of moving away from Windows #2. The majority of the work in my org goes on using MS Office. If moving away from Windows means moving away from MS Office that is a major, major risk. I don’t care how close OSS office packages are, unless there is 100% compatibility then I am in for some major headaches: macros not quite working, mail merges performing differently, documents not opening etc etc. Every single office doc related problem for the 6 months after the move will be blamed by the users (and eventually my Exec Board when they get to hear of it when their secretaries have a problem) on the new software, whether this is correct or not. Am I going to take that risk? Am I bollocks! Again, any inter-generational office format problems can be blamed on Microsoft – job done.

Risk of moving away from Windows #3. It’s likely that I’ll have some custom apps / legacy apps / specialist apps somewhere in the organisation (think accounts dept, legal dep, sales dep). Why should changing my desktop software mess up my lifecycle plans for these? Again, blame goes on me when it goes wrong.

There are more risks but lets look at how much I could save when taking all these risks. I’ll be generous and say I’m spending $150 per desktop on a windows license (probably much less on volume licensing) and I need 20,000 licenses. Lets assume support costs either way are equal. If I assume a 4 year life (about average) then I would save $750k a year. In an IT dept for a 20,000 org there is no way that outweighs the risk.

Sorry chaps, the benefits just do not outweigh the risks. I haven’t even mentioned the hassle of changing all the IT support software (central app deployment etc), retraining for techies, extra difficulties when exchanging files with suppliers and customers (a big problem in government, all UK central govt is using Office 2003 and will do for some time), and so it goes on. Sure, for a few organisations it will make sense, but tell me again why anyone would expect IT depts en masse to move to anything other than the least risky option?